[mrozbarry]

The biggest thing is people have bad experiences with reviewers, and people have a lot of insecurity when their work is scrutinized.

The biggest issue with code reviews as a process is it's always positioned as being adversarial. Often, you set up a pull/merge request, and someone later does a review, but it's not personal, it's cold and blunt data. Even with a reviewer who has the best intentions, it's tough.

Pair programming and review can _help_ with this. Sit with the person who wrote the code, and review together.

I'm with you, code reviews are great for learning, but like you said, you need to see it as a tool to help you succeed and learn, and not as a tool to show you how you're wrong.

[polishdude20]

At a previous place our code reviews just turned into a quick glance at the code without a real understanding of anything. On one hand I'd like to say it was built on trust in the engineer and test suite, on the other, there was just so much complication and tediousness in some things we did that it was hard to know what was going on in the first place.

[ericyd]

I think you're right. I'm not sure why people attach so much ego to the experience though.